THE LAYMAN'S VIEW.

Waiapu Church Gazette, Volume XII, Issue 6, 1 December 1921, Page 329

THE LAYMAN'S VIEW.

In the Christchurch Diocesan Synod on October 24thj some very vigorous speeches were made on the Divorce question. The point of view .-of a prominent Christchurch lawyer, is of particular interest. We append his speech. "A PERNICIOUS PRINCIPLE." Mr T. W. • Rowe moved : " That Section 4 of the Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Amendment Act, 1920, m allowing a decree of divorce to be pronounced against a person entirely innocent of any matrimonial offence m favor of one who has been guilty of such an offence, and m effect, because of such guilt, introduces into- the law a principle so pernicious and so : grossly unjust as to render imperative its instant repeal." He said that Section 4 of last year's Act was an astounding piece of legislation and introduced five new principles into the law of divorce. The first was that the decree of dissolution of marriage lay m the discretion of the- Judge, He had had to fight the case of a client m the Court of Appeal, which^had held that Mr Justice Her dman had l exercised his discretion on wrong grounds. To all intents and purposes there was no discretion m the Judge— if the Court of Appeal J s decision did not mean that, he did not-know what it meant. Mr Justice Herdman had, m the case referred ' to, done what any decent man would have done— -refused ~the decree. (Applause). The second new principle was that a decree might be granted where there has been, no matrimonial offence ; the thircK new, was that practicably ; clivorce;

was possible by mutual agreement. This last-mentioned principle interfered very with the rights of the .third -party of the contract— the children. Other new principles were that the commission of -a wrong _^as made . the, ground of claiming rights m a Court of law; - it was a maxim of law that no man <jould plead his own . wrong to claim " his rights. The fact that divorce could be obtained when there had been a judicial separation, or a separation made by a Stipendiary". Magistrate, made it possible for the guilty party to secure a divorce. So astounding was this that he found it impossible to believe "that the Legislature knew what it was doing when it put v; this slipshod, slovenly, careless, and unjust section on the «- Statute Book* (Applause)^.'" Another .. new principle was that the party Innocent o£ any matrimonial off en,ce might be divorced even though such party offered op T position-to the petition. The new law had done injustice, and would continue to do -injustice. ■ ■"'".